slovknigfandomcom-20200215-history
Talk:Poland
POLAND - POLSKA - POLSKIA InterSlavic offers at least two (2) forms for a COUNTRY'S NAME - its Native Language Form and an InterSlavic Schematic Form, which generally ends in "-ia". *Poland - English *Polska - Native Language Form *Polskia - Interslavic Schematic Form ---- *Russia - English *Rossia - Native Language Form *Rusia - Interslavic Schematic Form ---- *Czech Republic - English *Česká republika - Native language *Česko - Native Language Form *Českia - Interslavic Schematic Form *Čehia - Interslavic Alternative Form *Čehskja republika - InterSlavic Expanded Form ---- *Slovakia - English *Slovensko - Native Language Form *Slovenskia - Interslavic Schematic Form ---- *Croatia - English *Hrvatska - Native language *Hrvatskia - Interslavic Schematic Form ---- *Serbia - English *Srbija - Native Language Form *Serbia - Interslavic Schematic Form ---- *Macedonia - English *Makedonia - Native Language Form *Makedonia - Interslavic Schematic Form ---- *Ukraine - English *Ukraina - Native Language Form *Ukrainia - Interslavic Schematic Form ---- *Slovenia - English *Slovenija - Native Language Form *Slovenia - Interslavic Schematic Form ---- *America - English *Amerikia - Interslavic Schematic Form *Amerika - Interslavic Alternative Form ---- *England - English *Anglia - Interslavic Schematic Form ---- *France - English *France - Native Language Form *Francia - Interslavic Schematic Form ---- *Germany - English *Deutschland - Native Language Form *Nemcia - Interslavic Schematic Form *Germania - Interslavic Schematic Form ---- *Spain - English *España - Native Language Form *Espania - Interslavic Schematic Form Please no Polskia!!!! Any Polak will be against it. Moraczewski I think the same. Polskia, Slovakskia !!! is not good choice- is very bed acording to me. I hope the InterSlavic language will be natural NOT schematic. It exist Slovio and Esperanto and I know what they are. Valdi ' ---- KOMENTARI '''Gentlemen, ' Because you have free will and the ability to make choice when using a dictionary or choosing the words to use in a ''SLOVGROUPA'', you have the ability to choose to use either ''"Polska"'' or ''"Polskia''," '''Interslavic is a combined natural and schematic language. It always has been and always will be. The dictionary will contain many synonyms. Most will be natural language forms; but there will systematic, schematic forms as well. Steevenusx 23:04, February 1, 2010 (UTC) After k shouldn't be an ia. It looks strange, it sounds strange. Even if it's Polskia, Amerikia, Českia or Slovenskia. After k can be an i or an a but not ia. And ia after n when before is an i is also strange (Ukrainia). So in those cases, when the end is k or in the name should end with -a instead of -ia. --Poloniak 23:39, February 1, 2010 (UTC) ---- Poloniak - I understand that it may sound strange. But the point of the Schematic Form is that all Countries end in "-ia" ''so that the reader - especially in '''legal matters (contracts, agreements, etc) can know that the word represents a Country and not an individual or an adjective, etc. The considerations I have been making for Interslavic go beyond what an individual Pole, or Russian, or Serb may want to have in this language. Moraczewski wants Interslavic to be 100% natural. Others want it to be closer to Slovio or Esperanto. I and the people I work with in four countries want it to use it to be a logical "Lingua Franca" that will allow LEGAL DOCUMENTS to be understood across language borders and for internet communication to be smooth and well-understood. This means that we have a "compromise" of efforts. Fortunately, as I noted above, you and I have choices we can each make. Steevenusx 00:03, February 2, 2010 (UTC) :In my opinion, you are making a mistake by having multiple forms for about every word, because that way Slovioski will lack consistency, and become some sort of Slavic Europanto. Legal documents are written in many languages, including languages that don't have separate endings for country names, inhabitants or languages. Yet, these documents are clear and understandable. But if (within one or several documents) you sometimes encounter "Polska" and sometimes "Polakia" or "Polskia" (or whatever), then you are in real trouble! :In my opinion (as you can read on my pages, anyway), there's no point in trying to combine schematicism and naturalism. It simply won't work. This approach looks a bit as if you're trying to create something that encompasses both Slovio and Slovianski, but you seem to forget that these languages are very, very different from each other. And this is not just a matter of having different endings or picking different words, no, the very basics of both languages are completely different as well. Slovio is a language with a predominantly Russian-based word stock and a schematic grammar similar to Esperanto, and its purpose is to be simple. Slovianski on the other hand focuses on understandability. To be maximally understandable to Slavs, compromises have to be made when it comes to ease of learning. You can't have a language that is simultaneously as simple as Slovio and as understandable as Slovianski. :Besides, I have a feeling that the ending -ia won't work anyway for every state in the world. Juzxnoafrikia? Cxernogoria? Sojedinenistatija? Urugvajija? IJzeren Jan 00:47, February 2, 2010 (UTC) ---- JAN: Thank you for your comments. Alas, I am amazed that you of all people would make a comment like: ' "... there's no point in trying to combine schematicism and naturalism. It simply won't work." ...of course, you did indicate this was your'' "opinion".'' The mixture of schematic and natural text has worked for me and my kolegi now for nearly two years. Granted, we are only a small little "club" of now 50+ people in four different countries, who utilize this combined unworkable format daily in our communications. Incredibly! ...it does work somehow (and quite well!). I trust that your defeatist approach here is not ''de rigueur to your ongoing m.o.; especially because I have heard so many good things about you; this simply does not fit that picture. ''Dank u wel! So let's try moving forward without the defeat? Steevenusx 03:12, February 2, 2010 (UTC) :There's nothing defeatist about my approach. Naturalism and schematicism are both ends on a scale; Slovianski is a naturalistic language, but it has numerous schematic elements, too. You can pick any point on that scale as your starting point. But what I'm saying is that you cannot pick both ends of the scale and combine them into one language. You have to make a choice. When someone asks you if you'd like beer or wine, and you think: hm, actually I'd like both, you wouldn't pour both of them into one glass, now would you? :Optionality is okay as long as it's not overdone. Slovianski (as far as I can recall) has two cases of optionality: jak/kak and its derivatives, and the first person singular ''-u/-m''. That works, I'd say. However, if you start having optional variants for huge sets of words, you need at least to make sure that it's specified which version of Slovioski they belong to, and avoid combining them into one text. Effectively that means having more than one language. Perhaps that's the case? I have heard something about Polnij Slovioski and Sredni Slovioski, but I don't know any details. :Just out of curiously, Steeven, what's "m.o."? :As for the daily communications of the 50+ people you're referring to: that's very interesting as a case study. I wouldn't mind seeing a few written examples of that. :Cheers, IJzeren Jan 08:52, February 2, 2010 (UTC) modus operandi'' = method of operating''' ....... Steevenusx 08:58, February 2, 2010 (UTC) :(this reply got deleted accidentally) Thanks. No, there's nothing particularly rigorous about my modus operandi. But it's also true that before creating a language, one first needs to define its purpose and the way that purpose is going to be achieved. And once the design principles have been established, one should stick to them - or modify them on the way, but at least not violate them. I've heard there are talks about merging Polni Slovioski with Slovianski... Well, as far as I am concerned, this can be discussed. In fact, I'm willing to consider any change to the grammar of Slovianski, providing that these changes won't violate the design principles of the language. :And therefore my question would be: what precisely are the design principles of Slovioski? Are they laid out somewhere? Because once the design principles of both languages agree with each other, it should be possible to make an objective evaluation of each individual difference. :This has of course nothing to do with the discussion about optional variants of the same word. Here I was merely giving some advise, nothing more. IJzeren Jan 09:30, February 2, 2010 (UTC) ---- Schematicism is not bad providing that it is not exposed in the first position. In national languages there are schematicism as well - but there are a lot of schemas and exceptions. If schematic rules are in the first positions we obtain esperanto or slovio. The only slavic natural auxliary language I know is Slovianski. Li schematic rules are hidden behind naturality and all elements that are not necessary are not applied . So that is naturality which is visible "at first glade" not schematicism. Schematicism is grat to learn language and use it paracticaly, but it have to be well composed in naturality. I have written "Slovianski is the only ... I know" but it does NOT mean that Slovioski is bad. I just can't explore Slovioski because it changes its name, versions, options ... and I'm not an expert . I can only look at the language from position of user. Yes I know. Steeven will say : "you have a choice". Yes I have choice: 1. Between all slavic national languages - but it's not posible to me learn all slavic languages 2. Between artificial and full of schematicism language Slovio and naturalistic projectes of slavic auxliary lanuguages. I do not believe that exists the "middle way". Valdi :Precisely my point. And like I said, Slovianski has numerous schematic elements. To give an example: we have the word glova "head". You turn it into an adjective with the suffix '-ni', and with the prefix bez-''', we get '''bezglovni "headless". To make something have the qualities expressed by an adjective, we add the prefix u-''' and the ending '''-it' turns it into a verb. Thus ubezglovnit' means "to decapitate" (literally: "to make headless"). A good example of schematicism. Now don't ask me if any natural Slavic language has this form or something that looks like it. But all the material used here is purely Slavic, and any Slav would understand it. Now, Slovianski might have been more naturalistic if we'd start looking for the word "decapitate" in 11 dictionaries, but first of all, it hardly will improve understandability if we do so, and secondly, nobody has the time and the spirit to look up 50,000 words in 11 dictionaries. As you can see, this is the kind of schematicism that doesn't really look like it, but still makes a language a lot easier to handle. IJzeren Jan 13:01, February 2, 2010 (UTC) STEPPING BACK TO SEE THE FOREST FROM THE TREES Looking over the entire forest, I suspect that we may actually have the same trees in our different areas of the forest. Interslavic is intended to reflect the common naturalist vocabularies of the Slavic languages; but with certain schematic features. These include such words as "slovgrupa" or "slovogrupa" (either is acceptable) - and even "velikja ptica" or "vel-ptak" (sorry Andrej). Languages tend to simplify themselves always - look at Croatian especially - it reflects the Russian and Polish your descendants will be speaking 500 to 100 years from now, imho). I would urge you to look at the words you wish to use in your daily communications; and, perhaps, not focus on trying to achieve clean perfection for every period, comma or hacek. Life is not clean and it certainly is not perfect. Vocabulary is of paramount importance. Grammar can be changed anytime - (e.g. whether an adjective ends in "-ij" or "-y") '''''Blago te! Steevenusx 17:05, February 2, 2010 (UTC) ---- PLEASE SIGN YOUR COMMENTS!! PLEASE SIGN YOUR COMMENTS! Prosim klaviaturij svoja podpisa, kda napisaš postanie. Abi to delat, kliknij na podpisnej knopke (vidij pogoruo), ili možiš klaviaturit čiteri tildi: ~ ~ ~ ~ (ale jedin po drugim) --Steevenusx 16:38, February 2, 2010 (UTC)